|
|
Terry, At 03:30 PM 20/02/2009, Terry Manderson wrote:
So, to play devil's advocate, this policy really provides an advantage to the large players who can justify a larger utilisation than the minimum allocation in a 6 month period (such that membership class is less of an issue)?? I might have thought that in the "run out phase" we might be more considerate of those smaller ISPs who might exist in slightly less developed countries, who cannot justify the /22 in 6 months but might still like to get 'even distribution'.
I'm not sure if I was clear - the change was to ensure that those needing only a /22 for a year *could* still receive those addresses, and therefore this should avoid disadvantaging smaller ISPs.
(I believe that - prior to this change - the concern about the potential disadvantage to smaller ISPs was probably the main reason why this proposal was not accepted at the Christchurch meeting, and why this change has been added to mitigate that situation.)
Does that help reduce your concerns about this?
Regards,
David